In re Election Commission II
In re Election Commission II, 16-006 (2017) is a case in which the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley ruled that the association has some authority over the University Election Commission. Justice Daniel Chapman delivered the opinion of the court and the judgment was 5-0. The advisory ruling declared that the association may repudiate the actions of the commission which are not "acceptably adherent to the regulations and decisions of the association," and that "the Association may find the commission’s work is unsatisfactory and must be redone according to the Association’s standard." University Election Commission The University Election Commission "sponsors and runs" student elections at SVSU, according to the Student Association Charter. The commission is comprised of an Election Commission Advisor as well as three-to-five students who serve as commissioners. The Election Commission Advisor is appointed by the SVSU Vice President of Student Affairs for a term of three academic years, beginning with the first day of the summer semester. The commissioners are appointed by the Election Commission Advisor from nominees proposed by the Student Association President and the SVSU Vice President of Student Affairs. Commissioners serve two year terms beginning on the first day of the fall semester. They serve until graduation, resignation, or until they no longer meet eligibility criteria. In order to be eligible to serve on the commission, SVSU students must maintain at least 6 credits as well as, at least, a 2.25 cumulative grade point average. Background 2014 Student Election As Student Association Parliamentarian, Chapman, in perhaps the boldest parliamentary opinion, invalidated and re-opened the 2014 student elections after ruling that the 'good standing' election rule conflicted with the charter. The 'good standing' rule required that students be in good standing—currently registered with no holds for financial, disciplinary, or academic matters—in order to be eligible to vote. The opinion represented a risky exercise in autonomy, asserting authority over the commission, to which the association, beforehand, had nearly completely delegated election matters. Chapman's opinion was widely seen as a technicality, and did not affect the results of the election, because the number of voters rejected due to the rule could not make up the difference in votes between the two presidential candidates. 2013 Student Election Dispute In the 2013 student elections, Chapman failed to retain his seat as a representative, coming just four votes shy and finishing 21st in voting. The top twenty candidates were elected. The election results came after Chapman publicly accused the Election Commission Advisor Nic Taylor of impropriety. Chapman initiated a formal complaint based upon those accusations and he also challenged the election results. His complaints, however, were largely ignored by SVSU officials, and he received a one-sentence e-mail message from SVSU assistant dean of students Marie Rabideau that read "I have investigated your claim and find no unethical conduct by Nic Taylor, election commission advisor," without elaborating. Chief Justice Westendorf's Concurring Opinion Chief Justice Michael Westendorf wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Trevor Ward. Westendorf joined part I of the court's opinion, but could not agree that the association had the power to hold student elections without the participation of the commission. "The Association is bound by the shackles of the charter’s text, and the keys to those shackles belong solely to the student body," Westendorf wrote. Westendorf's opinion cited Article III § 1 of the charter, which states that: "Elections will be sponsored and run by the University Election Commission."